Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
While neither party would have been a perfect 'match' for your views, you had the responsibility to evaluate what Trump was like (especially his racism) and considered "I don't think the Democrats truly match my ideals, but I really don't think the country will be served by a bigot in the white house". You weren't going to get a libertarian in office anyways, so the attempt to prevent a blatant racist from being president should have been an acceptable secondary goal.

The whole "neither party matches my views" is a cop out.

A racist was put into the white house. A man who labeled neo-nazis as "fine people" and who had innocent children locked in cages. You could have voted against him, but you decided not to. You are partially culpable.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that it's acceptable that the system is set up so that the only legitimate choices are to vote for a despicable person or to vote for those whose platform is most nearly opposite of the positions you believe in?

This is something that needs to be fixed. I don't know if instant runoff voting or something else is the answer, but this is a symptom of a problem with the two party system.
 
dudalb said:
Look, I support abolishing the electorial college altogether, but that is simply not happening. AI think getting rid of the Winner take All porvisions is a good mitigation.
Click to expand...

Hmm, OK. I could get behind every state assigning their 2 senatorial electoral votes winner-take-all and the rest of them proportionally. But, no states do that, which is why I responded to your previous post. Also EVERY state would need to do it in order to be fair. And that would require a constitutional amendment anyway.
 
Trump tweets

"Republicans will totally protect people with Pre-Existing Conditions, Democrats will not! Vote Republican."

"We are a great Sovereign Nation. We have Strong Borders and will never accept people coming into our Country illegally!"

"For those who want and advocate for illegal immigration, just take a good look at what has happened to Europe over the last 5 years. A total mess! They only wish they had that decision to make over again."
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
Hmm, OK. I could get behind every state assigning their 2 senatorial electoral votes winner-take-all and the rest of them proportionally. But, no states do that, which is why I responded to your previous post. Also EVERY state would need to do it in order to be fair. And that would require a constitutional amendment anyway.
Click to expand...

In the end, politics is indeed the art of the possible, and getting the constitution amended to abolish the electorial college is pretty much impossible for the foreseeable future.
Better is do something that might not be perfect but would improve the situation rather then waste your time on something that almost no chance of happening.
 
dudalb said:
In the end, politics is indeed the art of the possible, and getting the constitution amended to abolish the electorial college is pretty much impossible for the foreseeable future.
Better is do something that might not be perfect but would improve the situation rather then waste your time on something that almost no chance of happening.
Click to expand...

The GOP knows going to a proportionally weighted electoral system will heavily damage their odds of ever taking the White House again*. An amendment to do that would be just about as difficult as abolishing the electoral system in its entirety.

*I'm trying work out the math but I think they'd almost certainly have lost in 2000 and 2016 with such a system.
 
lobosrul5 said:
The GOP knows going to a proportionally weighted electoral system will heavily damage their odds of ever taking the White House again*. An amendment to do that would be just about as difficult as abolishing the electoral system in its entirety.

*I'm trying work out the math but I think they'd almost certainly have lost in 2000 and 2016 with such a system.
Click to expand...

It is just easier for the GOP to change the voter pool than to reform the party.
But when they no longer can do the former, the latter will follow.
 
Pipe bombs sent to prominent Democrats.
I'm sure the usual suspects will shortly be on the case with conspiracy theories and whataboutisms.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well..... I was gonna let it go but if you're going to double-down on your wrongness.

No. The post you're responding to is a series of quotes in which Trump repeatedly uses the word Democrats to describe people in the Democratic Party. He never once uses xxxxxxxx Party. The proper way to refer to a member of the Democratic Party is "a Democrat".
Click to expand...

Well since we're fisticuffing now (;)), how about this quote in the post I was responding to (1508)? :

“As we speak, the Democrat Party is openly encouraging millions of illegal aliens to break our laws, violate our borders and overwhelm our nation. That’s what’s happening. The Democrats have launched an assault on the sovereignty of our country, the security of our nation, and the safety of every single American.”
— Oct. 22 rally, Houston
Click to expand...

That was what I was addressing. :)
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
While neither party would have been a perfect 'match' for your views, you had the responsibility to evaluate what Trump was like (especially his racism) and considered "I don't think the Democrats truly match my ideals, but I really don't think the country will be served by a bigot in the white house". You weren't going to get a libertarian in office anyways, so the attempt to prevent a blatant racist from being president should have been an acceptable secondary goal.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that it's acceptable that the system is set up so that the only legitimate choices are to vote for a despicable person or to vote for those whose platform is most nearly opposite of the positions you believe in?
Click to expand...
Once again... if one of your options involves voting for a guy who is racist, who claims that neo-nazis are "fine people", who locks innocent children in cages, then yes, you should definitely vote to prevent such a guy from obtaining power, regardless of whether you like his tax plan, or his haircut, or whatever benefits you think he brings to the table. Bigotry trumps all.

Secondly, your claim that the opponent's platform may be "nearly opposite" of what a voter might like... if you are talking about Trump vs. Clinton, why exactly would anyone assume Trump's policies are any closer to what the voter wants? Trump was well known for lying, and for giving policies that were often inconsistent/contradictory. Not sure why anyone would assume Trump's platform matched what they wanted anyways.

Is it "acceptable"? All political systems have faults. The best the voter can do in any political system is to make the best selections with the faults and options available. Its not a case of being "acceptable" if you have to pick someone you don't agree with... its a case of not taking a bad situation and making it worse.
 
Belz... said:
And again, right over your head.

It wasn't an example of that. It was a clear example of why political parties don't represent some views: those views are nonsense.
Click to expand...

That didn't get it past me. Some people have nonsense political views. So what?
 
BobTheCoward said:
While neither party would have been a perfect 'match' for your views, you had the responsibility to evaluate what Trump was like (especially his racism) and considered "I don't think the Democrats truly match my ideals, but I really don't think the country will be served by a bigot in the white house". You weren't going to get a libertarian in office anyways, so the attempt to prevent a blatant racist from being president should have been an acceptable secondary goal.
Click to expand...
Dumb demogogue versus smart liberal. That is pretty equally bad.
Click to expand...
No, no its not.

Once side (i.e. Trump and the republicans) seek to enact bigoted policies. To turn huge portions of the population into second class citizens. Nothing that Clinton or the democrats came anywhere close to that, regardless of what you might think of her financial or foreign policies.

Trump was a racist. You chose not to take a stand. You...are... culpable.
 
Segnosaur said:
No, no its not.

Once side (i.e. Trump and the republicans) seek to enact bigoted policies. To turn huge portions of the population into second class citizens. Nothing that Clinton or the democrats came anywhere close to that, regardless of what you might think of her financial or foreign policies.

Trump was a racist. You chose not to take a stand. You...are... culpable.
Click to expand...

Taxation is slavery. Can't support a slaver
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom